Final Report (September 1999) - Law Reform Commission of ...

REVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL

REVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA thousands more through the web-site. Information about our Review on the Internet expanded progressively as 30 papers on different aspects of the justice system were published on our web-site. The public meetings During the Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System, the Commission held or participated in 10 ‘Have Your Say’ public meetings throughout the State. The Commission also hosted an hour-long television broadcast concerning law reform. The program on the Westlink Satellite Network offered viewers a toll-free number which they could call in order to speak to the three members of the LRCWA. Our objective was to give Western Australians living in remote parts of the State an opportunity to express their views. Members of the Commission and our Administrative Officer spoke to ABC Regional Radio and the ABC’s Stateline television program as well as numerous local newspapers. Public meetings held in Karratha, Kalgoorlie, Bunbury, Geraldton, Albany and Perth brought the Commissioners face to face with a wide range of Western Australians, many of whom were eager to speak out concerning their experiences with the justice system. The public submissions Resourcing our recommendations More than 650 people and stakeholder organisations made submissions concerning the Review of the Civil and Criminal Justice System with some individuals and groups, including the Australian LawReformCommission, making numerous submissions. The focus of many of the public submissions was law and order. These voluminous submissions are summarised briefly in a separate report. The Public Submissions Report synthesises thousands of pages of material provided to the Commission by members of the public and includes suggestions received on a wide variety of topics including issues outside the current project’s Terms of Reference, such as sentencing ofoffenders. Making resourcing recommendations is also outside the scope of our work. The LawReformCommission’s task was to come up with suggestions to make the justice system work better. In our view that means we are to develop ideas for making the system faster, simpler, and easier to understand while delivering fair and just results. What improvements to the justice system may cost is beyond our capacity to evaluate. We can only make recommendations; we can not implement them nor do we consider how they can be resourced. However, we have been cognisant of the futility of making recommendations likely to consume significant public resources at a time when finances are already stretched in health, education and other important areas of State responsibility. Therefore we have focussed our attention upon reforms likely to involve no, or limited, public expenditure. viii

REVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA The stakeholders’ survey and consultation process To ensure that our recommendations would be workable and have some support, the Commission surveyed stakeholders. At the conclusion of the survey process it was apparent we should circulate proposals set in the context of an analysis of the existing system and available alternatives before coming out with final recommendations. The Commission produced 30 Consultation Drafts and Background Information Papers in connection with the Review which we circulated in hardcopy to the media and stakeholders and, as noted above, made freely available through the Internet web-site. The Background Information Papers describe the present system and set the stage for the Consultation Drafts. The Consultation Drafts propose more than 400 reforms for reducing delay and making the justice system simpler, fairer and less expensive. Some of the proposals are controversial. We received more than 150 detailed submissions from individuals and organisations in response to the Consultation Drafts. Our FinalReport In keeping with our efforts to reform law reform, this FinalReport is unlike any report previously produced by this Commission. Lawyers and legal scholars may question our style. There are no footnotes and very few citations to cases and other legal authorities. We use few abbreviations. Our method of citation to material outside this report is simple. It is not the formal style of legal citation with which lawyers are familiar. Our sources are, for the most part, detailed in the collected Consultation Drafts. There is also a short bibliography of materials directly referred to in this FinalReport as well as source materials we used which are not cited in the Consultation Drafts. The Consultation Drafts and the work of the Australian LawReformCommission (ALRC) which we have considered canvas the law and legal literature on the wide variety of subjects covered in this Review. We should note that the ALRC released Discussion Paper 62: Review of the federal civil justice system in late August 1999. While we have reviewed Discussion Paper 62, our substantive work had been completed by the time we received this document. This FinalReport is our attempt to communicate clearly, directly and succinctly. We have tried to eliminate Latin and archaic terminology and to avoid ‘legalese’. Our objective has been to express our ideas for reform in plain English. We hope that some day all rules, statutes and communications concerning legal proceedings will be capable of being understood by the average person. When we have not been able to simplify our terminology, we have put the word in the glossary at the back of this Report. Special thanks My fellow Commissioners and I are indebted to the authors of the Consultation Drafts, the hundreds of people who wrote submissions or spoke out at public meetings, and our own staff of temporary employees and consultants. ix